Panel to reconsider Clarke statements

THE WASHINGTON TIMES ^ | 4-7-04 | James G. Lakely

[Indy Pendance]

The September 11 commission will look at the discrepancy between the testimony of Richard A. Clarke that the Clinton administration considered the threat of al Qaeda "urgent" and its final national-security report to Congress, which gave the terror organization scant mention.

[Arrowhead1952]

Mr. Clinton wrote in the preface, "We are blessed to be citizens of a country enjoying record prosperity with no deep divisions at home, no overriding external threats abroad, and history's most powerful military ready to defend our interests around the world."......

Charlie Black, an informal adviser to the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign, said Mr. Clinton's final congressional terror report shows that his national-security team "really had weak responses and no sustained effort" against al Qaeda and global terrorism......

"His credibility is pretty much shot," Mr. Black said. "I'm sure Dr. Rice will finish off what is left of it when she testifies."

Just in case you haven't read this thread, this should get real interesting after Dr. Rice testifies.

[Soaring Feather]

bump

[Quilla]

Mr. Clinton wrote in the preface, "We are blessed to be citizens of a country enjoying record prosperity with no deep divisions at home, no overriding external threats abroad, and history's most powerful military ready to defend our interests around the world."

You know that list we used to see on many threads describing the divisions/fleets/etc. cut from the military by Clinton? Well, imagine it here. I wish I could find it.

[Toespi]

VARIOUS QUOTES FROM THE GREAT DECEIVER BILL CLINTON

New York City, October 23, 1995: "For the first time since the dawn of the nuclear age, there's not a single solitary nuclear missile pointed at the people of the United States of America."

Concord, New Hampshire, February 2, 1996: ". . . for the first time since the dawn of the nuclear age, there is not a single nuclear missile pointed at an American child today."

Philadelphia, April 26, 1996: ". . . for the first time since the dawn of the nuclear age, there is not a single, solitary nuclear missile pointed at an American child tonight."

Toledo, Ohio, August 26, 1996: ". . . for the first time since the dawn of the nuclear age, on this night, this beautiful night, there is not a single nuclear missile pointed at a child in the United States of America."

And so on: In Nashville, Washington, Iowa City, New Orleans, Coral Gables, San Francisco, Santa Monica, St. Louis; Ashland, Kentucky; Sun City, Arizona; Hartford, Connecticut -- even in a telephone speech to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the very people who would coordinate disaster relief in the event of a nuclear attack. Mr. Clinton is not alone in making this mistake.

Vice President Al Gore echoed the president in his carefully rehearsed speech to the 1996 Democratic National Convention: "Our strength at home has led to renewed respect abroad: nuclear missiles no longer pointed at our cities. . . ."

[bondjamesbond]

A guy I work with keeps saying that Clarkes book was given to the White house for approval before it was released, and the White house approved the book just the way it is, ergo what Clarke is saying is all true.

The book may have been vetted to determine that no sensitive national security information was released. But this is a far cry from editing the book for factual errors.

It would be a gross infringement on free speech for the White House to re-write privately published books. It is an acceptable infringement on free speech to make sure that no vital information is included, however.

So the fact that the White House vetted the book has no bearing on it's factual accuracy.

[Fawnn]

LIE?????? Under oath????? A liberal would NEVER do that, never..... nah..... never ....

Don'tchaknow? This time the commission is all about TEX.... ;)

[Oldeconomybuyer]

..."His [Mr. Clarke] credibility is pretty much shot," Mr. Black said. "I'm sure Dr. Rice will finish off what is left of it when she testifies."...

Amen.

[bondjamesbond]

This is all really pointless. Nobody was aggressive enough to stop bin Laden before 9/11. The country was just not in the right place for that kind of action back then. We were in our fat-dumb-and-happy phase, right up until the second plane hit the other tower. At that instant, everything changed.

To apply our post-9/11 sensibilities to what happened before that day is grossly unfair to everybody. I do not hold the Clinton Administration responsible for 9/11, and I do not hold the Bush Administration responsible either. I hold the Islamic terrorists who did the deed, and those who aided and abetted them, responsible.

It is bad strategery for the Republicans to try to cast blame on the Clinton Administration. If Clinton could have done something in his eight years, Bush could have done something in his eight months. But the simple fact of the matter is that the country was not ready for any drastic action until we had been attacked at home.

From a strategerological point of view, any report that concludes that Clinton was responsible will have to apportion some measure of blame to Bush. The final report could be titled "How Clinton Blew It", and have a picture on the cover of Bubba with a hand grenade in one hand and a box cutter in the other, and the message the public will receive is that 9/11 was preventable and it's all George W. Bush's fault.

[cajungirl]

I think his credibility is zero but the rub is, they don't care. The people who this appeals to just don't care if it is true or a lie. They will vote dem based on an "impression".

[johnny7]

Yea... sounds good but wait till Thursday. Wait till perky Commissioner Jamie Gorelick, gets her free shots in. Gorelick served as deputy attorney general under Janet Reno. Bob Kerry wanted to be Algores VP after being shoved around by Gore's thugs in the New Hampshire Primary in 2000. He confessed to the atrocities that John F'n Kerry made up... a million and-a-half from 1965-1972. Think he wouldn't love to be Kerry's VP?! Fair and impartial my ass.

This is do-or-die for the 'Rats'... make no mistake!

[daybreakcoming]

Not only that but like a student undertaker worked on him

[mtbopfuyn]

Reconsider? How about a public flogging?

[VRWC_minion]

Sunday, Sept. 30, 2001 10:49 p.m. EDT

Barr to NewsMax: Condit Security Appointment 'a Joke'

When he heard the news that scandal-scarred congressman Gary Condit had been picked to serve on the House Subcommittee on Homeland Security and Terrorism, Rep. Bob Barr couldn't believe his ears.

"This is somebody's idea of a bad joke," he told NewsMax.com exclusively, while attending a convention Sunday of National Rifle Association supporters in Melville, N.Y.

"As a matter of fact, about a week or so ago when this was announced, ... I actually thought it was a joke," the Georgia Republican added.

Barr was the first member of Congress to call for a House Ethics Committee investigation into Condit after charges surfaced that he tried to obstruct the investigation into the disappearance of his mistress Chandra Levy.

In August, House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt threatened to bounce Condit from his seat on the House Intelligence Committee after national security experts fingered him as a blackmail risk.

But not only hasn't that happened, a day after terrorist attacks on the Twin Towers and Pentagon prompted President Bush to announce the creation of the Office of Homeland Security, Gephardt quietly sanctioned Condit's appointment to the companion House committee.

Once Rep. Barr realized that Condit's new assignment was no prank, he was concerned the move showed a blatant disregard for national security concerns at a time when they should be paramount.

"It's a shame that this was done," he said. "It's thumbing your nose at all of those things that we ought to be doing."

Barr said he has yet to hear from the House Ethics Committee about his complaint against Condit.

"Given the amount of time that's gone by, I sort of doubt that I'll hear anything. They just don't seem to be interested," he told NewsMax.com.

[expatpat]

Good emphasis!

[VRWC_minion]

and the White house approved the book just the way it is, ergo what Clarke is saying is all true.

You both need a course on logic. The purpose of the review is security not truth.

[MizSterious]

'Bout time. Thanks for this ping, this is good news.

[mass55th]

"   Mr. Clinton wrote in the preface, "We are blessed to be citizens of a country enjoying...no overriding external threats abroad..."

HUH?

[mass55th]

The job of the White House wasn't to approve or disapprove the drivel inside the book, their job was to review the manuscript for any sensitive security info that shouldn't be published.

[OldFriend]

You can't charge someone with perjury for their opinions or impressions.

Clearly Clarke never let the FACTS get in the way of his opinions and he is now exposed for the fraud that he is.....and he is right, he will not be getting a job in D.C. as long as republicans are doing the hiring.

Clarke would fit perfectly in a Kennedy senate staffer's position tho, wouldn't he?

[BlessedByLiberty]

Indeed!

Apparently Free Republic's fantastic "amateur" researchers, Rush, FOX, Drudge, et al, have been so far ahead of the partisan press on Clark's conflicting comments that even the 911/Kerry for President/Commission is forced to take another look.

Good job!